About the BEVI

The Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI) is an accessible, adaptable, and powerful analytic tool that can be used as an independent or dependent measure in a wide range of applied settings, evaluative contexts, and research projects. From an applied standpoint, the BEVI helps individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions 1) understand better what they believe and value about themselves, others, and the world at large and 2) reflect upon how such beliefs and values may - or may not - be conducive to learning, personal growth, relationships, and the pursuit of life goals. From the perspective of evaluation and research, the BEVI 1) helps answer questions such as "who learns what and why, and under what circumstances," 2) allows for the examination of complex processes that are associated with belief/value acquisition, maintenance, and transformation, and 3) analyzes the impact of specific experiences that are implicitly or explicitly designed to facilitate growth, learning, or change.

The BEVI is able to move flexibly across these applied, evaluative, and research domains because it is deliberately comprised of four complementary measures that are built into one instrument: 1) extensive demographic and background information, 2) a life history questionnaire, 3) a comprehensive assessment of beliefs, values, and worldviews, and 4) qualitative "experiential reflection" items. As a result of this mixed methods approach (i.e., both quantitative and qualitative assessment in one measure), the BEVI allows for sophisticated analyses of the relationships among interacting variables and processes so that multifaceted BEVI seeks questions can be asked and answered, such as How are specific life events or background variables associated with specific ways of seeing self, others, and the world at large? or How do such interactions mediate or moderate the likelihood of learning or growth when exposed to experiences that are different from what one is accustomed? In short, the BEVI seeks to understand "who the person is" prior to participating in a learning, growth, or development experience, "how the person changes" as a result of the experience, and how these factors interact to produce a greater or lesser likelihood of learning, growth, development or change.

Development of the BEVI

In accordance with appropriate psychometric standards and processes (e.g., Downing and Haladyna, 1997; Geisinger, 2013; Hubley & Zumbo, 2013; Robinson, Shaver, and Wrightsman, 1991, 1999), the BEVI has been in development since the early 1990s. Preliminary items for the BEVI were derived primarily from actual belief-value statements in the U.S. and internationally. Since then, the BEVI has been revised and refined through multiple processes of analysis (e.g., item analysis with administrators, educators, practitioners, researchers, and supervisors; review by subject matter experts in the field of international / multicultural education; subject to multiple factor analyses; approval by a wide range of Institutional Review Boards). In addition to extensive and ongoing review of relevant empirical findings and theoretical perspectives, the BEVI also has been studied in a wide range of research projects and programs since the 1990s. For more information, two sources are particularly relevant (just click on the highlighted links): 1) The Forum BEVI Project: Applications and Implications for International, Multicultural, and Transformative Learning at Frontiers, the journal of the Forum on Education Abroad and 2) Making Sense of Beliefs and Values: Theory, Research, and Practice, an accessible and comprehensive book on the BEVI method and EI model that is available through Amazon.

Return to the top

EI Theory, EI Self, and BEVI

The BEVI is grounded in mature and robust theoretical and empirical literatures, including a comprehensive review of research related to the constructs assessed by this instrument. The specific conceptual framework for the BEVI is called Equilintegration or EI Theory, which integrates a wide range of empirical findings and theoretical perspectives over the past several decades in order to "explain the processes by which beliefs, values, and 'worldviews' are acquired and maintained, why their alteration is typically resisted, and how and under what circumstances their modification occurs" (Shealy, 2004, p. 1075). By way of introduction to this theoretical framework, it may be helpful to review the first four hypotheses and principles of EI Theory (Shealy, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2015).

  1. Beliefs and values are central mediating processes for behavior at individual and societal levels, but they may or may not be "known" (i.e., may be implicit or non-conscious), and are not necessarily rational or logically grounded.

  2. Beliefs and values are determined by an individual's history, larger culture, and unique Zeitgeist, inculcated over time, and may or may not transcend a specific time and place. Although that which is believed and valued may be relative to a given time or place, the human capacity and need for an organizing worldview is an etic derivative of the self; thus, although the content of our beliefs and values may vary as a function of what is available for acquisition, the processes (e.g., developmental, affective, attributional) by which beliefs and values are acquired are determined by constitutive aspects of the self.

  3. When combined with sufficient knowledge about important life experiences and events, belief and value statements often provide (a) a great deal of information about the hypothetical structure and organization of personality or "self" and (b) a relatively accessible point of entry to issues and phenomena that are meaningful in a wide range of settings and contexts.

  4. Beliefs and values are not easily modified because they represent, for each individual, the unique culmination of an interaction among these affective and attributional processes and developmental/life experiences, which are codified (ultimately at a physiological level) in personality and "self." Because human beings balance the desire for equilibrium and stasis against the inevitable internal and external pressures for development and growth, changing beliefs and values often means changing underlying structure (and vice versa); this process of understanding how structure came to be inevitably involves an emotionally charged and not-always-conscious examination of what one believes and values about self, others, and the world at large.

Concomitant with EI Theory, the BEVI is "designed to identify and predict a variety of developmental, affective, and attributional processes and outcomes that are integral to EI Theory" (Shealy, 2004, p. 1075). For example, the BEVI: 1) provides a systematic basis for understanding beliefs and values associated with related programs of inquiry (e.g., ethnocentrism, religious tolerance, partisanship, gender-based policies/practices) in order to explore what might be termed "the psychology of reductionism"; 2) establishes a theoretical and methodological "bridge" between qualitative (e.g., content/discourse based) and quantitative (e.g., factor analytic) approaches; 3) serves as an experimental measure (e.g., Does Sociocultural Openness predict behavior toward different ethnic groups or genders in an interview paradigm?); 4) provides a means to study simultaneously a range of interrelated affective, attributional, and developmental constructs and processes (e.g., How might religious or political orientation relate to Emotional Attunement, Gender Traditionalism, and Negative Life Events?); and 5) is suitable for assessment at the individual, group, and organizational level through personalized reports and customized analysis options.

Finally, the Equilintegration or EI Self represents in pictographic form the integrative and synergistic processes by which beliefs and values are acquired, maintained, and transformed as well as how and why these are linked to the Formative Variables, Core Needs, and Adaptive Potential of the self (Shealy, 2015). Informed by decades of scholarship in a range of key areas (e.g., "needs-based" research and theory; developmental psychopathology; social cognition; affect regulation; theories / models of "self"), the EI Self seeks to illustrate how the interaction between our "core needs" (e.g., for attachment, affiliation) and "formative variables" (e.g., caregiver, culture) results in "beliefs and values" about self, others, and the world at large that we all internalize over the course of development and across the life span.

EI Theory, the EI Self, and the BEVI provide an integrative model, framework, and method that are relevant to a very wide range of research programs and applied activities. For example, informed by the basic principles and hypotheses of EI Theory - and in the context of the conceptual framework, structural elements, and dynamic processes illustrated by the EI Self - the BEVI serves as a kind of "MMPI of justification systems" (Henriques, 2005, p. 136), by facilitating a way to access, operationalize, and study 1) the various Versions of Reality (VORs) that human beings are capable of constructing (at the level of the "Ectoself"), 2) how a range of interacting Formative Variables (e.g., life history, demographic variables) influence the acquisition, maintenance, and modification of such systems and processes, which are 3) ultimately related to the Core Needs and Adaptive Potential of the "Endoself." For an accessible and comprehensive book regarding the BEVI method and EI model, please see Making Sense of Beliefs and Values: Theory, Research, and Practice at Amazon.

Return to the top

BEVI Structure, Scales, and Reliability

Both the long and short versions of the BEVI1 consist of four interrelated components: 1) a comprehensive set of demographic/background items that may be modified for particular projects, 2) a life history questionnaire, which is built into the measure, 3) two validity and seventeen (Short Version) or eighteen (Long Version) "process scales," and 4) three qualitative "experiential reflection" items. For the long version of the BEVI, "PF" (Primary Factor) and "SF" (Secondary Factor) designations and the accompanying numbers refer to whether the scale was extracted as a "primary" or "secondary" factor, and in which order of extraction (primary factors were derived via a Schmid- Leiman transformation, which essentially is a factor analysis of a factor analysis). The scales that are listed underneath each numbered scale are presented in descending order of magnitude from correlation matrix findings (e.g., the correlation of each scale by all other scales). Note that validity scales, demographic / background items, and three qualitative items also are incorporated into the following BEVI structure.

  1. Validity Scales
    • Consistency
      (the degree to which responses are consistent for differently worded items that are assessing similar or identical content)
    • Congruency
      (the degree to which response patterns correspond to that which would be predicted from a statistical standpoint)
  2. Formative Variables (Section One of BEVI: Demographic and Background Items)
    • Scale 1. Negative Life Events (.76, SF 11) (early developmental challenges, considerable life conflict)
      Needs Closure (.81)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.69)
      Identity Closure (.66)
      Emotional Attunement (-.62)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.57)
      Divergent Determinism (.53)
      Ecological Resonance (-.43)
      Basic Closedness (.41)
      Hard Structure (.23)
  3. Fulfillment of Core Needs
    • Scale 2. Needs Closure (.88, PF 1) (challenging life circumstances, odd explanations for why things are the way they are, ambivalent or distant relationship with core needs in self and/or others)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.93)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.90)
      Emotional Attunement (-.85)
      Identity Closure (.84)
      Negative Life Events (.81)
      Basic Closedness (.78)
      Ecological Resonance (-.72)
      Divergent Determinism (.65)
      Hard Structure (.53)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (.31)
    • Scale 3. Identity Closure (.82, SF 21) (undifferentiated from caregivers, identity is foreclosed, troubled childhood, feels little agency or ability to affect change, searching and lost but feels helpless, confused)
      Needs Closure (.84)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.71)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.69)
      Negative Life Events (.66)
      Emotional Attunement (-.63)
      Ecological Resonance (-.49)
      Hard Structure (.42)
      Divergent Determinism (.42)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (.24)
  4. Tolerance of Disequilibrium
    • Scale 4. Basic Closedness (.82, PF 7) (may deceive self, be naïve, deny basic thoughts, feelings, or needs, difficulty tolerating ambiguity or emotional pain)
      Hard Structure (.90)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.81)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.79)
      Needs Closure (.78)
      Emotional Attunement (-.77)
      Ecological Resonance (-.65)
      Identity Closure (.62)
      Divergent Determinism (.45)
      Negative Life Events (.41)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (.34)
    • Scale 5. Hard Structure (.77, SF 15) (settled on and confident in who one is, no regrets or doubts, beatific, not caught off guard)
      Basic Closedness (.90)
      Emotional Attunement (-.59)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.58)
      Needs Closure (.53)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.53)
      Ecological Resonance (-.44)
      Identity Closure (.42)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (.27)
      Negative Life Events (.23)
  5. Critical Thinking
    • Scale 6. Causal Closure (.82, PF 6) (holds traditional gender values, reports a difficult childhood, stereotypic in general, authoritarian tendencies, experiences painful thoughts, denies the possibility of prejudice)
      Basic Determinism (.82)
      Socioreligious Closure (.28)
    • Scale 7. Basic Determinism (.82, SF 25) (prefers basic / simple explanations for why people are as they are or do what they do, inclined towards sociobiological explanations of phenomena, stereotypic about genders, highly traditional socioculturally)
      Causal Closure (.85)
      Socioreligious Closure (.37)
      Positive Thinking (.22)
    • Scale 8. Divergent Determinism (.86, SF 20) (eschews common answers / understandings of phenomena, prefers non-convergent explanations and non-traditional policy solutions, unconventional, questions authority, contrary, won't be pinned down)
      Socioemotional Convergence (-.81)
      Needs Closure (.65)
      Emotional Attunement (-.58)
      Negative Life Events (.53)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.50)
      Basic Closedness (.45)
      Ecological Resonance (-.43)
      Identity Closure (.42)
      Gender Traditionalism (-.33)
      Hard Structure (.21)
    • Scale 9. Socioreligious Closure (.90, SF 10)
      (strong religious beliefs, God alone provides happiness/health, great faith, perceives little personal control)
      Basic Determinism (.37)
      Causal Closure (.28)
  6. Self Access
    • Scale 10. Emotional Attunement (.87, SF 17)
      (highly emotional, highly sensitive, highly social, needy, affiliative, undifferentiated, values emotional expression)
      Needs Closure (-.85)
      Socioemotional Convergence (.84)
      Basic Closedness (-.77)
      Sociocultural Openness (.77)
      Ecological Resonance (.64)
      Identity Closure (-.63)
      Negative Life Events (-.62)
      Hard Structure (-.59)
      Divergent Determinism (-.58)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (-.20)
    • Scale 11 Positive Thinking (.76, SF 18)
      (controls own thinking, strong sense of will, doesn't like "negative thinking," stridently cheerful and positive, high degree of self-responsibility, impatient with weakness / need, highly efficient)
      Global Engagement (.62)
      Self Awareness (.24)
      Basic Determinism (.22)
    • Scale 12 Self Awareness (.79, SF 12)
      (open to difficult thoughts and feelings, introspective, tolerates confusion, aware of how self works, feeling person)
      Global Engagement (.80)
      Positive Thinking (.24)
  7. Other Access
    • Scale 13. Socioemotional Convergence (.98, PF 2)
      (complex and seemingly contradictory juxtapositions among "conservative" and "liberal" beliefs at a number of levels, including but not limited to, the power of self-reliance with a recognition of personal vulnerability; patriotism and multicultural appreciation; traditional roles and standards with progressive aspirations and social policies; valuation of self-examination with a "don't look back" sensibility; simultaneous endorsement and rejection of various stereotypes; openness to recognition of personal shortcomings with a fierce determination to focus on what is positive)
      Needs Closure (-.93)
      Emotional Attunement (.84)
      Sociocultural Openness (.82)
      Divergent Determinism (-.81)
      Basic Closedness (-.79)
      Ecological Resonance (.69)
      Identity Closure (-.69)
      Negative Life Events (-.69)
      Hard Structure (-.53)
      Gender Traditionalism (.25)
    • Scale 14.Sociocultural Openness (.95, PF 3)
      (progressive, accepting, culturally attuned, open, concerned, globally oriented)
      Needs Closure (-.90)
      Ecological Resonance (.88)
      Socioemotional Convergence (.82)
      Basic Closedness (-.81)
      Identity Closure (-.71)
      Emotional Attunement (.77)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (-.62)
      Hard Structure (-.58)
      Negative Life Events (-.57)
      Divergent Determinism (-.50)
    • Scale 15. Socioreligious Traditionalism (.79, SF 9)
      (traditional / strong religious beliefs, God-fearing)
      Sociocultural Openness (-.62)
      Ecological Resonance (-.53)
      Basic Closedness (.34)
      Gender Traditionalism (.34)
      Needs Closure (.31)
      Hard Structure (.27)
      Identity Closure (.24)
      Emotional Attunement (-.20)
  8. Global Access
    • Scale 16. Gender Traditionalism (.81, SF 13)
      (contends that men and women are built to be a certain way, prefers traditional and basic views of gender and gender roles)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (.34)
      Divergent Determinism (-.33)
      Socioemotional Convergence (.25)
    • Scale 17. Ecological Resonance (.91, SF 26)
      (sees spirituality in natural world, introspective, open to experience, open to possibilities, values rights for all)
      Sociocultural Openness (.88)
      Needs Closure (-.72)
      Socioemotional Convergence (.69)
      Basic Closedness (-.65)
      Emotional Attunement (.64)
      Socioreligious Traditionalism (-.53)
      Identity Closure (-.49)
      Hard Structure (-.44)
      Negative Life Events (-.43)
      Divergent Determinism (-.43)
    • Scale 18. Global Engagement (.87, PF 5)
      (persistent, empathic, self aware, emotionally open, hopeful/optimistic, values respectful relations/healthy traditions, concerned about the earth, tries hard, inclined toward advocacy, change-agent, may be naïve at times, thoughtful, culturally aware)
      Self Awareness (.80)
      Positive Thinking (.62)
  9. Experiential Reflection Items
    • Question 1. Which event or aspect of your learning experience had the greatest impact upon you and why?
    • Question 2. Was there some aspect of your own "self" or "identity" (e.g., gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or political background, etc.) that became especially clear or relevant to you or others as a result of this experience?
    • Question 3. What have you learned and how are you different as a result of this experience?

Return to the top

Forum BEVI Project

The Forum BEVI Project - a six year, multi-institution assessment of learning initiative - offered an ideal opportunity to examine and refine further the underlying psychometric properties of this measure, while also conducting a wide range of studies to understand the complex interactions among various BEVI scales (and subscales) as well as real world implications and applications (see http://www.forumea.org/research-bevi-project). As such, one of the major substantive outcomes of this initiative was further analysis of what was by then (following additional factor analytic work) a 415-item version of the BEVI in an attempt to lower the number of items on this measure, clarify further its underlying factor structure, and examine a wide range of mediators and moderators of learning. As reported in over 20 publications (e.g., articles, chapters, dissertations), 50 presentations (e.g., symposia, papers, posters), and hundreds of separate analyses from 2007 - 2014, a range of colleges, universities, and study abroad providers administered the BEVI to successive waves of participants including an initial sample of nearly 2,000 participants in the US and internationally. Working from this 415-item version of the BEVI, statistical analysis narrowed the original number of factors on the BEVI from 40 to 18; nearly 60 items also were eliminated during the subsequent review process. Norms then were established for each of these "scales" (i.e., factors) with most reliabilities above 0.80 or 0.90. Three new qualitative items also were integrated into the BEVI prior to the pilot phase, which allowed for complementary types of analyses.

Return to the top

BEVI Short Version

Despite such findings and developments, a number of institutions / organizations still desired a shorter version of the BEVI for a number of reasons. First, within the context of higher education in particular, assessment demands already were high and student / faculty time was short. Second, although each scale on the long version of the BEVI assessed different constructs, these were interdependent with one another (i.e., by design, and consistent with the interconnected nature of beliefs, the "oblique" nature of factor rotation parameters allowed items to load on more than one factor). Information gleaned from separate EFAs during its development did much to illuminate how and why specific "beliefs, events, and values" were associated together as they were. However, we long had recognized the need to move beyond EFA in order to determine by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) if and how the EFA structure of the measure held upon administration to a new and separate sample, and to understand the relationship among more parsimonious versions of each scale construct. Thus, from 2011 - 2013, we undertook the process of creating a "short version" of the BEVI. The overarching goal was to determine if a shorter version of the BEVI, with substantially fewer items, could be developed in a manner that didn't compromise the fundamental integrity of the measure (i.e., a "short version" would continue to illuminate how and why "beliefs, events, and values" were interrelated as they seemed via multiple analyses). As any psychometrician will attest, this process was highly painstaking and intensive. 2 Following a data-scrubbing process (e.g., ensuring that duplicated or incomplete cases were removed from the database), we identified a sample of 2,331 cases to be used in conducting the CFA.

This first phase was much more do-able than the next, which required multiple steps to determine which items could be eliminated without sacrificing the integrity of the measure. First, we confirmed which items were loading on which specific scale. Because a number of the long version scales were measuring higher order constructs, it was necessary again to identify smaller subsets of items (i.e., sub-factors) that comprised the larger construct. Through Cronbach's alpha, items were selected that could be removed safely without significantly impacting the consistency of a particular factor (i.e., scale) or its sub-factors (i.e., sub-scales). We then used analytic methods aligned with item response theory (IRT) to identify the relative contribution of each item to each scale. Again, the overarching goal of this step was to ensure that the short BEVI extracted information about respondents that was similar to the information extracted on the long BEVI. 3 Although the analyses for this process were relatively straightforward, the challenge lay in the sheer volume of data as well as the need to examine all possible permutations among all items and all scales. Ultimately, we automated these procedures via a "python program," which would stop and output results whenever the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was equal to 0.7 and allow us to compare the respective shape of the information curve for each scale of the BEVI. In other words, to preserve the integrity of the BEVI, items loading on the short version needed to evidence a similar capacity to identity the same types of respondents as did the longer version (e.g., regardless of whether someone strongly agreed or strongly disagreed to the items on a particular scale, the short BEVI needed to be able to identify such individuals with a degree of sensitivity that was equivalent to that of the longer version). The end result of this process was the identification of candidate items for retention and deletion in the development of the short BEVI.

But despite this fundamental step forward, we weren't done yet. That is because the python program often "spat out" different multiple item combinations of various short BEVI scales. To figure out which combination was best for each scale, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) to test all of these possible combinations based upon theoretical propositions that had emerged over time to explain "what" specific BEVI scales were assessing and "why." This process also was highly iterative, involving a great deal of back-and-forth dialogue between theoretical and statistical perspectives on this measure. Ultimately, we were able to settle on final solutions for all scales that had good statistical and sound theoretical properties. At the conclusion of this process, 40 demographic and background variables (from 65), 185 items (from 336), and 17 scales (from 18) were retained in the short BEVI. 4 Table 1 summarizes core information regarding these scales. 5

Table 1

BEVI Scale Summaries


As noted above, to explore scale structure, we used SEM to test the relationships between the items and constructs, a process that was highly iterative. Table 2 summarizes the final model fit information, which indicates that 1) these scales have a relatively good model fit and 2) sufficiently approximated the underlying theory.

Table 2

Model Fit Information for BEVI Scales


Return to the top

BEVI Validity

Finally, regarding the validity of the BEVI, evidence is indicated by a number of studies demonstrating that the BEVI is able to predict group membership across a wide range of demographic variables, including but not limited to gender, ethnic background, parental income, political orientation, and religious orientation (e.g., Anmuth et al., 2013; Atwood et al., 2014; Brearly et al., 2012; Hill et al., 2013; Isley et al., 1999; Hayes et al., 1999; Patel, Shealy, & De Michele, 2007; Pysarchik, Shealy, & Whalen, 2007; Shealy, 2000a, 2000b, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2012; Shealy, Bhuyan, & Sternberger, 2012; Tabit et al., 2011). To take just a few examples, in a study comparing Mental Health Professionals and Evangelical Christians on the BEVI, Hayes (2001) found that "...the instrument accurately classified Evangelical Christians and Mental Health Professionals, with 95% of originally grouped cases correctly classified, which strongly suggests that the BEVI can validly discriminate between these two groups" (p. 102).

In another study examining environmental beliefs and values in general and the reported degree of concern about global warming, Patel (2008) found the following:

...women, Democrats, and atheists or agnostics with a lower "need for control," lower "self access," and a relatively lower degree of "separation-individuation" are most likely to express environmental concerns whereas Republican men who are Christians with a higher "need for control," higher "self access," and a relatively higher degree of "separation-individuation" are the least likely to express environmental concerns....EI theory, the EI Self, and the BEVI offer a promising theoretical framework, model, and method for predicting and explaining who is and is not concerned about the environment by illuminating the underlying affective, attributional, developmental, and contextual processes that mediate and moderate why such belief/value processes and outcomes occur in the first place (pp. 43, 46-47).

As a final example, in a study comparing the BEVI and the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), Reisweber (2008) concluded the following:

...it is both compelling and consistent with an EI framework that the BEVI was able to identify in advance which students would be more or less likely to increase their intercultural awareness by the end of that academic year. Specifically, students who reported lower Naïve Determinism and more Gender Stereotypes at the beginning of the academic year were statistically more likely to demonstrate an increase in intercultural awareness after living for nine months in an international residence hall. Furthermore, students with a higher degree of Negative Life Events and Emotional Attunement, as measured by the BEVI, also demonstrated greater and more accurate intercultural sensitivity, as measured by the IDI (pp. 79-80).

For more information about the BEVI - including multiple applications and studies in a wide range of settings and contexts - two sources are particularly relevant (just click on the highlighted links): 1) The Forum BEVI Project: Applications and Implications for International, Multicultural, and Transformative Learning from Frontiers, the journal of the Forum on Education Abroad and 2) Making Sense of Beliefs and Values: Theory, Research, and Practice, an accessible and comprehensive book on the BEVI method and EI model that is available through Amazon.

Return to the top

1The Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI) is a copyrighted inventory. The BEVI and BEVI items, item content, or scales may not be modified, copied, disseminated, or published, in whole or part, without the written and express permission of Craig N. Shealy, Ph.D.

2An initial version of this section - on development of the short BEVI - was documented by Wenjuan Ma, a statistician for the Forum BEVI Project.

3Since most institutions, organizations, and settings are now using the "short version" of the BEVI, and because of the extensive analytic process that resulted in this version, the "short version" of the BEVI is now the primary version of the BEVI.

4It should be noted that we retained one scale - Identity Diffusion - that did not meet this .70 threshold (it had an alpha of .61). Also, a few items progressing through the first steps did not survive SEM, but were retained nonetheless. Our reasons for doing so were to identify specific combinations of items for the short version of the BEVI that had the best reliability while also retaining as much fidelity as possible to the longer BEVI. One scale - Global Engagement - appeared to be a sub-factor of a newly named factor, called Meaning Quest, which explains why the short version of the BEVI has one less scale than the long version. Extensive review of item combinations resulted in the renaming of several scales in order to better represent the apparent meaning of each factor. Finally, in addition to the statistical analyses of the 336 items from the long version, another round of subject matter expert review of the demographic / background items was conducted as well, which resulted in the elimination of 25 such items.

5Note that although scale names for the BEVI Short Version remain the same, the scale order in Tables 1 and 2 are different from the final numbering of scales for purposes of theoretical alignment. Such differences were due to factor extraction and other analytic processes during scale / item review.